Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume IV

The Learner-Centered Paradigm of Education

Charles M. Reigeluth, Brian J. Beatty, Rodney D. Myers, Charles M. Reigeluth, Brian J. Beatty, Rodney D. Myers

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317747642
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Education
• Categoría: Education General

Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume IV provides a research-based description of the current state of instructional theory for the learner-centered paradigm of education, as well as a clear indication of how different theories and models interrelate. Significant changes have occurred in learning and instructional theory since the publication of Volume III, including advances in brain-based learning, learning sciences, information technologies, internet-based communication, a concern for customizing the student experience to maximize effectiveness, and scaling instructional environments to maximize efficiency.

In order to complement the themes of Volume I (commonality and complementarity among theories of instruction), Volume II (diversity of theories) and Volume III (building a common knowledge base), the theme of Volume IV is shifting the paradigm of instruction from teacher-centered to learner-centered and integrating design theories of instruction, assessment, and curriculum. Chapters in Volume IV are collected into three primary sections: a comprehensive view of the learner-centered paradigm of education and training, elaborations on parts of that view for a variety of K-12 and higher education settings, and theories that address ways to move toward the learner-centered paradigm within the teacher-centered paradigm.

Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume IV is an essential book for anyone interested in exploring more powerful ways of fostering human learning and development and thinking creatively about ways to best meet the needs of learners in all kinds of learning contexts.

UNIT 1

Fundamental Principles of the Learner-Centered Paradigm of Education

Unit Foreword

Unit 1 provides a broad yet shallow view of the learner-centered paradigm of education and training. Chapter 1 presents an “epitome” of design theories for this emerging paradigm. Because decisions about how to teach in this paradigm are inextricably intertwined with decisions about how to test and even with decisions about what to teach, this chapter describes design principles for all these aspects of education and training. Chapters 2–5 then present an elaboration on the principles in Chapter 1, and Unit 2 provides yet another level of elaboration.

The learner-centered paradigm is characterized by far more variations than is the teacher-centered paradigm. As theorists attempt to provide more detailed guidance, we find that there are alternative ways (methods) to implement a general principle, and that different ways are preferable in different situations. We therefore asked all authors to describe situational principles as well as universal principles. Also, since design principles are goal-oriented and thus normative, they are based on values. Methods should often vary as one’s values vary, so we asked all authors to describe the values that underlie their design theories. In sum, all authors were asked to address the following in their chapters: 1) introduction, including definitions, importance, and underlying descriptive theories, 2) values upon which their design theory is based, 3) universal principles or methods for their design theory, 4) situational principles for their design theory, 5) implementation issues or case description, and 6) conclusion or closing remarks.

In Chapter 1 Reigeluth, Myers, and Lee present a comprehensive vision of the learner-centered paradigm of instruction, a vision founded on the idea that the current paradigm of instruction—now more than a century old—is no longer appropriate to meet the learning needs of individuals or society. The Industrial Age conception of education as a process of mass production—in which learners all study the same thing at the same time and are assessed in the same way—is no longer adequate in the Information Age. The 21st century is a time of accelerating change, rapidly accumulating knowledge, and dramatically increasing access to that knowledge. Rote memorization and standardized testing are resulting in students whose knowledge and skills are practically obsolete upon graduation. We need graduates who are equipped to embrace change, who are prepared to make sense of the vast amounts of information at their fingertips, and who are curious and eager to communicate, collaborate, innovate, and create new knowledge. To help all learners succeed, the authors describe the learner-centered paradigm as being attainment- (or competency-) based rather than time-based, task-centered rather than content-centered, and personalized rather than standardized. This requires changed roles for the teacher, the learner, and technology. It also requires a different paradigm of curriculum, one that is fundamentally restructured around effective thinking, acting, relationships, and accomplishment.

In Chapter 2 Voorhees and Voorhees elaborate on the attainment-based nature of the learner-centered paradigm. They address the nature of competency statements, which are largely related to learning goals and criteria for their attainment. They address sequencing and structuring of competencies to accelerate learning, principal among which is basing learner progress on mastery rather than time. And they devote considerable attention to student assessment, which should measure individual skills and knowledge, be criterion-referenced with predefined rubrics, be performance-based, be personalized with student input on their design, and much more. The authors also address the importance of a system to keep track of the competencies that each student has mastered and a system for constantly evaluating and improving the instruction and assessments.

In Chapter 3 Francom elaborates on the task-centered nature of the learner-centered paradigm. Based on Merrill’s “first principles of instruction,” he offers guidance for 1) selecting, sequencing, and scaffolding tasks, 2) activating prior knowledge, 3) demonstrating performance of skills (or part-tasks) and providing procedural and supportive information, 4) having learners apply those skills and procedural and supportive information, and 5) providing opportunities for the learners to integrate what they have learned and explore new ways to use it.

In Chapter 4 Watson and Watson elaborate on the personalized nature of the learner-centered paradigm. Their design principles offer guidance for personalizing each student’s long- and short-term instructional goals, creating a personal learning plan for each student, and keeping detailed records of each student’s progress. Guidance for personalizing the task environment addresses selecting tasks that are of great interest to the student as well as relevance to the learning goals, and deciding whether tasks should be done individually or collaboratively. Principles for personalizing scaffolding for the task address adjusting the quantity and quality of scaffolding to the student’s self-regulation skills and developmental needs. Principles for personalizing assessment include guidance for deciding how to assess both task performance and mastery of individual attainments. And guidance for personalizing reflection address when and how a student should reflect on both the learning process and task performance.

In Chapter 5, the last chapter in Unit 1, Prensky elaborates on the nature of curriculum for the learner-centered paradigm. He describes a truly different paradigm of curriculum, one designed to prepare all people for a useful and successful life. It has some of the content from the current curriculum, which is organized around the four main subjects of Math, English, Science, and Social Studies (MESS), but it totally reorganizes them under the four main subjects of thinking effectively, acting effectively, relating effectively, and accomplishing effectively. He describes many sub-skills for each of these four main subjects, and he describes how traditional subject areas are needed as vehicles for learning them. It is our view that the four new subjects are equally relevant for K-12 education, higher education, and corporate and government training.

In Unit 2 this fairly general set of design theories is elaborated for more detailed and varied guidance about what methods to use and when to use them in the learner-centered paradigm of education and training. Then Unit 3 offers design theories that are intended for use in the teacher-centered paradigm as steps toward the learner-centered paradigm.

– C.M.R., B.J.B., & R.D.M.

1

THE LEARNER-CENTERED PARADIGM OF EDUCATION

Charles M. Reigeluth

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

Rodney D. Myers

INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR

Dabae Lee

SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY

Charles M. Reigeluth is a distinguished educational researcher who focuses on paradigm change in education, the design of high quality instruction, and the design of technology systems for the learner-centered paradigm of education. He has a B.A. in Economics from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in Instructional Psychology from Brigham Young University. He taught high school science for three years and was a Professor at Indiana University for 25 years. His most recent book is Reinventing Schools: It’s Time to Break the Mold, which is the culmination of much of his work on paradigm change and instructional theory. Web: www.reigeluth.net, www.reinventingschools.net.

Rodney D. Myers is an independent scholar and consultant who teaches courses in instructional design and technology. He received a B.A. and M.A. in English from Ball State University, an M.A. in instructional technology from San Jose State University, and a Ph.D. in instructional technology from Indiana University. His research is broadly oriented toward exploring how to design and use emerging technologies to create meaningful and memorable learning experiences. His current research focuses on how online learning experiences—games and simulations in particular—can be designed so that they effectively promote learning while remaining engaging and motivating.

Dabae Lee is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Upon completion of her B.A. in business administration, she worked as a business analyst. She received her Master’s and Ph.D. degrees in instructional technology and her Master’s degree in inquiry methodology at Indiana University. Her research interests include personalized learning, collaborative learning, learner-centered instructional methods, roles of technology in learner-centered paradigm, active learning spaces, and research methods in instructional technology.

EDITORS’ FOREWORD

Preconditions (when to use the theory)

Content

• All kinds of content.

Learners

• All kinds of learners.

Learning environments

• Learner-centered rather than teacher-centered.

• Attainment-based learner progress rather than time-based progress.

• Customized rather than standardized instruction and assessment.

Instructional development constraints

• Requires well-designed resources in the form of tasks and instructional support.

Values (opinions about what is important)

About ends (learning goals)

• Development of intrinsic motivation and love of learning are highly valued.

• Development of learner self-regulation skills (how to learn) is highly valued.

• Mastery of knowledge and skills is highly valued, including transfer to varied and real-world contexts.

• Development of collaboration skills is highly valued.

• Emotional, social, and character development are highly valued, including empathy and desire to contribute to one’s community.

About priorities (criteria for successful instruction)

• Effectiveness and intrinsic motivation of the instruction are more important than efficiency.

About means (instructional methods)

• The instruction should be customized regarding pace, content, methods, and assessment.

• Intrinsically motivated learning and love of learning are highly valued.

• Learning by doing (active learning) is highly valued.

• Just-in-time instructional support while learning by doing is highly valued.

• Learning from peers through collaboration is highly valued.

• Self-regulated learning is highly valued.

• Self-reflection and self-evalua...